What is the difference between someone who kills their child because "god told them to"

[cleanhippie]

and someone who gives away everything they own to charity because "god told them to?"


In recent days, It has been stated the the one who kills because "gold told them to" was simply mentally ill or deranged.

If that is the case, then why are those that commit benevolent acts because "god told them to" NOT considered mentally ill or deranged?

[Swede]

1. When someone hears actual voices is the tip off.

:shrug:

[PassingFair]

35. Rule of thumb: It's OK to talk to God....

It's NOT OK when he talks to YOU.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Who said they weren't?

[SheilaT]

3. Murder does seem to be in a very

different category from giving things away.

And I'm not sure giving everything away because "god told me to" is actually a benevolent behavior. It's really based on a totally self-centered, selfish point of view. It's NOT being done to benefit others, but ONLY because god said so. Intention matters. If the intention is to benefit others, then that's benevolent. If it's simply to divest oneself of one's worldly goods, then it's not, and I rather suspect that in such cases there's almost no attempt to make sure the recipient is actually going to benefit in some truly important, altruistic way.

[get the red out]

4. Different acts

One act is abhorrent to nature, killing one's off-spring, this is totally counterintuitive and downright idiotic from a genetic standpoint.

The other act is more natural since humans are a cooperative species.

I'm not in favor of anyone not getting checked out by mental health professionals if they are actually hearing voices and not just interpreting their belief system as a directive to be charitable. Obviously anyone contemplating murder is not ok at all!

[pnwmom]

5. Assuming the second person didn't "hear voices," but was reacting

to an altruistic ethical philosophy, they're very different.

[struggle4progress]

6. Got a backlog of stories about voices telling people to give their stuff to charity? Post away!

I'm sure we'll all discuss them

:eyes:

[saras]

7. Depends on your religion

If you're Christian...

God explicitly tells you, repeatedly, to give away everything you own.

God explicitly forbids murder.

[skepticscott]

13. You need to check your Old Testament

God explicitly commands murder. A lot. If you went by the example of the Hebrews, you'd think there was nothing odd at all about god telling you to murder someone.

[rug]

8. The difference is altruism makes poor flamebait.

[okasha]

9. WINNER!!!

N/T

[darkstar3]

11. That's mostly because no one who is religious will attempt to disown it.

You can't say the same about murder.

[okasha]

10. Suppose you start by clarifying what you mean

by "God told them to." Are we talking audible voice, like God in Bill Cosby's "Noah" routine? Or are we talking about a person coming to the conviction that giving away all his/her possessions to the poor is a necessary component of her/his personal spiritual life?

[darkstar3]

12. You've never in your life heard or read the statement

"God is telling me..."?

I've heard that sentence finished, in all sincerity, with everything from "to donate to X charity", to "to witness to you now", to "to go to Haiti", and much more.

Another question: You've never heard the phrase "still, small voice"?

[okasha]

15. Yes, I've heard the phrases.

No, that's not a clarification and doesn't address the question.

[darkstar3]

17. Sure it is.

It's just not a clarification you wanted or an answer you liked.

[okasha]

18. Fail.

I asked whether we're talking about autditory phenomena or something else. You didn't answer that question; you merely attempted to obfuscate, not terribly successfully.

[darkstar3]

19. I did answer the question, actually, using phenomena you're admittedly already familiar with.

[okasha]

21. Still avoiding the question.

Let me try one more way that perhaps will produce an answer:

Are you talking about someone who is actually experiencing a symptom of mental illness (audible voices) or about someone who is not? The distinction is crucial, though it's obviously one you don't care to make.

[darkstar3]

22. You tell me what the "still, small voice" is.

[okasha]

26. Usually refers to one's conscience.

n/t

[darkstar3]

27. Not the way I was taught.

The church I was brought up in taught us that voice was the Holy Spirit trying to guide us on the pathway Jesus wanted us to walk.

Of course, I never heard it, but that didn't stop my from trying really hard all through childhood...What happens when someone tries really hard to hear that voice, and they hear it?

[okasha]

63. You're still avoiding the direct question I asked.

Until you do, your question is meaningless.

[darkstar3]

66. No, I'm not.

Go back and read the subthread from the start. You're trying desperately to categorize "hearing voices" as strictly a sign of mental illness that is outside of religion. It doesn't work that way. Many religious people, who have no other diagnosable mental illness, believe that they hear God's (or Jesus', or the Holy Spirit's) actual voice in their heads.

If hearing voices in one's head is a sign of mental illness, as you have claimed here, then anyone who says "God told me to do X" or "I heard that still, small voice say go to Y" is mentally ill. Thus, by your own classification of these behaviors as symptoms of mental illness, the point of the OP is proved.

[okasha]

70. No. I'm saying that audible voices are a sign of mental illness.

You refuse to say whether you're referring to audible voices giving directions to kill or give to charity or have tuna fish for supper. You're attempting to avoid the distinction to be able to categorize religious people who believe they're following God's will as mentally ill.

That's not only dishonest but a particularly cheap dodge.

[darkstar3]

72. That's because I disagree with your terminology.

Audible implies that the sound waves hit the ear and then are transported to the brain through various signals. In other words, it implies an external, physical source.

In both cases, they are voices in someone's head. Is that mental illness, or not?

[okasha]

77. All right. One more try.

Are you talking about a voice audible to the person who purports to hear it? As in "auditory hallucination?" Are we talking about something comparable to say, hearing the doorknob play "The Blue Danube Walz?"

[darkstar3]

78. Judging by the characterizations of the masses who have experienced such things, yes.

Again, as I've been driving at this whole time and you have refused to acknowledge, "In both cases, they are voices in someone's head. Is that mental illness, or not?"

[okasha]

80. Okay.

You talk about "the masses that have experienced such things." Let's see some facts to back that up. How many people who say "God is telling me..." are actually experiencing auditory hallucinations? Give us some statistics.

I've heard this expression quite a bit, and not one who used it was talking about a "Now hear this!" type of experience.

[Silent3]

81. How about looking at this a different way

Are you certain that when someone kills in God's name, claiming God told them to kill, that such an experience must be an auditory hallucination? Or could murder also result from the "still, small voice" non-hallucination form of being "told" to do something?

[okasha]

82. I've never claimed it had to be an audible voice.

That was the parameter set by the OP.

You have a valid question, but how about we let darkstar back up the positive, empirical statement he made before we go off on another tack?

[darkstar3]

83. Mischaracterization.

At no time did the OP imply an audible voice. You set that parameter, and you defined it poorly from the start. My answer of "yes" to your question is based on your poor definition and the fact that the description given by those claiming to have these experiences fits your poor definition.

The funny thing is, the reason you chose that definition is because you know there are no stats on it, because most of the people claiming to hear God's voice do not submit themselves to mental evaluation. So not only are you mischaracterizing the OP, your attempt to use that mischaracterization to dismiss the point made there in its entirety is more transparent than it ever was, and also more useless.

Howsabout you answer the question put to you by the OP, and by me in this subthread: Regardless of what action they take based on their justification, are people who claim that God told them to do something mentally ill?

It's a simple yes or no question.

[okasha]

85. In other words, you have no substantiation.

I didn't think you did, but wanted to give you the chance to back up your claims.

[darkstar3]

86. It's a simple yes or no question.

Drop the straw and answer it, or bow out.

[okasha]

88. Now that darkstar has admitted he has no evidence for his

assertions and we can pack that up as finished business--

This is a good question because it makes the distinction that the OP didn't. I think it's actually pretty certain that most people who do something "in God's name," whether for good or ill, are in fact listening to their consciences, that "still, small voice." They can be led to their actions by any number of things, from reading material to incidents that occur in their daily lives. Someone, for instance (but probably not the governor of South Carolina) might infer from a tree's falling on the family's SUV that "God wants me to be a better steward of the earth." That might be especially true if the person had also, say, just seen a film on Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd. A non-believer might follow the same thought path, just leaving God out of it.

So is that insane? I don't think so. The conclusion reached by both is socially beneficial and harms no one.

With murder or other anti-social acts, you have, I think, a chicken-and-egg problem. Which is primary? Does a person determine to do violence, then rationalize that "God wants me to kill a doctor who provides reproductive care for women?" Or does he come first to the conclusion that God wants the doctor dead, then determine to carry out the killing? The first person knows he's committing an unlawful act and has to appeal to a divine authority to attempt to justify it. I'd call him criminal but sane. In the second case, I would consider it a distinct possibilty that the person is mentally ill, just on the old rubric of being unable to tell right from wrong.

With actual hallucinations, the presumption has to be that something is seriously wrong, either physically or mentally. In the tragic case of the woman who shot her son, it appears that her conviction that she was the anti-Christ was the culmination of a long history of delusions--that she was being buried alive, that she was being eaten by ants, etc.--none, of which,incidentally, had a religous content. She was a terribly sick woman long before religion came into the matter, apparently as an explanation of why she was suffering so horribly.

[darkstar3]

89. You accuse me of lacking substantiation, and then fail to post your own.

"I think it's actually pretty certain that most people who do something "in God's name," whether for good or ill, are in fact listening to their consciences,"

Got any stats? Or are you a hypocrite?

And speaking of hypocrisy

With murder or other anti-social acts, you have, I think, a chicken-and-egg problem. Which is primary? Does a person determine to do violence, then rationalize that "God wants me to kill a doctor who provides reproductive care for women?" Or does he come first to the conclusion that God wants the doctor dead, then determine to carry out the killing? The first person knows he's committing an unlawful act and has to appeal to a divine authority to attempt to justify it. I'd call him criminal but sane. In the second case, I would consider it a distinct possibilty that the person is mentally ill, just on the old rubric of being unable to tell right from wrong.

There's a big problem here. You have no problem attributing "good" acts to religious motivation, but "bad" acts like murder you attribute to mental illness if the motive for the crime was clearly religious. In your eyes, George Tiller's killer wasn't religiously motivated, he was just mentally ill.

That's called hypocrisy. Either religion can motivate people to do both good and bad things, or neither. You can't separate religious motivation from the bad things only.

[okasha]

90. Okay, now you're reading things that aren't there.

I think it's obvious that it's possible to be both mentally ill and religiously motivated. By the way, I don't have any information about whether George Tiller's murderer was mentally ill or not. As far as I know, he falls into that first category--criminal and sane.

[darkstar3]

91. Now that you've admitted you have no evidence...

Let's return to the point of the OP. Why are religious motivations for "good" acts unquestioned, even lauded, while religious motivations for "bad" acts are immediately divorced from such acts by their supporters?

[okasha]

93. Wanna cracker?

n/t

[darkstar3]

95. Just an answer will be fine.

[cleanhippie]

100. I don't think you are gonna get one.

The ignorance is strong.

[okasha]

101. Okay.

1. Because "good" acts are socially constructive pretty much by definition, and no one by a few people on this board seem to give a damn why people do them as long as they get done. It's a practical approach. "Humanitarian" motives are equally unquestioned. So are tax write-offs.

2. When that happens, it probably happens for the same reason no atheist on DU will admit that Stalin, Mao or the French Jacobins slaughtered religious people to bolster state-sponsore atheism. On the other hand, I don't see a lot of people claiming that, say, persecution of LGBTs in the US and other places is divorced from religion or that it's a good thing. Nor have I seen any great denial that GWB's motivations for the invasion of Iraq were, if not direclty religious, at least intended to appeal to his religious supporters.

I'm assuming you mean the supporters of religious motivations, by the way, not supporters of the "bad" acts. But one can never tell.

[darkstar3]

102. A few problems

1. Lots of people care why good acts get done, not just because it is possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, but also because good acts are so often used as excuses for bad. Witness the Archbishop's book that says, in essence, "what about all the good things Catholocism did?" Further, you missed the part in my question where I pointed out that the religious motivations themselves are often lauded, as in the case of Mother Teresa and several other prominent humanitarians who are not only noted for their works, but also for their motivations, as in this example from my pastor years ago: "Look at her dedication, her courage of convictions, her complete submission to God's will. This woman is an example of how God can do incredible things through ordinary people."

2...
"for the same reason no atheist on DU will admit that Stalin, Mao or the French Jacobins slaughtered religious people to bolster state-sponsore atheism."
Read any of those threads and see the number of times people here have pointed out that the slaughter of people under Communism was about power, and the subjugation of any and all authoritative sources, including religion, to the power of the Party. Communist suppression of religion has as much to do with atheism as Communist suppression of art has to do with art criticism.

"I don't see a lot of people claiming that, say, persecution of LGBTs in the US and other places is divorced from religion"
Then you haven't spent much time reading the posts of believers here in the R/T forum, who try desperately to tell those who disagree with them that persecution of homosexuals has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with culture. You haven't read the myriad of posts where people tell us all that Jesus wouldn't persecute anyone, and the posts that manage to work in the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin." (:puke:) And while we're on religion vs. culture, you might search GD for any threads mentioning female genital mutilation (or FGM) and witness the number of people who shout about how that practice is cultural, not religious, as if religion hadn't been used to validate, reinforce, and spread it far more effectively than any other tool.

So, you didn't answer the question.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

106. In order:

Take your sexism and shove it.

That "religious professional" was a real counter-example to your casual observance, so tough shit.

Your invocation of special pleading shows that you don't understand the fallacy, and your dismissal of even the most basic history as "specious" is laughable.

Links to such posts would be call-outs, which are against the rules, and you know it.

I'm not talking about FGM thousands of years ago, but the growth and reinforcement of the practice over the last 200 years, and I'm sure you knew that, too.

If you're going to engage in such sophomoric tactics, I'll say goodnight.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iris27]

14. Reality is people will do good things and people will do bad things regardless of the religion they

follow.

Others are all too happy to claim the good deeds as a by-product of the faith professed (and indeed, cast a skeptical eye on those without religion, wondering how they could ever BE "good" people without a deity's moral compass).

But any bad done by people who claim to be motivated by their faith, well, those actions must be totally divorced from any religious connotations. It's because they're crazy, or they're using religion as their excuse, etc., etc.

You either gotta take the good with the bad, or leave it all on the table.

[darkstar3]

16. Perfectly stated. n/t

[cleanhippie]

23. It would be impossible for me to agree with you more.

[westerebus]

28. Loughner.

The fellow who killed six people and wounded 12 others was deemed unfit to stand trial by reason of insanity.

Were there voices in that instance also?

In this case an atheist is responsible.

Do all atheist bear his guilt as well?

[laconicsax]

29. Wrong question.

When someone bases their actions in part, or in whole, on their religious beliefs (eg. killing someone to make sure they go to heaven, exorcising demons, etc.) denying the role of their religious beliefs is lunacy.

The mother who killed her son at a firing range believed she doing a benevolent thing by making sure he would go to heaven. Her religious beliefs clearly played a role, so it matters what they were.

Loughner, IIRC, didn't base his rampage on atheism or a non-belief in a god, so why should it matter if he's an atheist?

(BTW: He wasn't deemed insane, but incompetent. There's a pretty big difference there.)

[westerebus]

30. Incompetent due to insanity.

Being unable to assist in his own defense. It was a competency hearing in pre trial motions.

How do you know what caused his rampage?

Could have been fear of christians?

May be that quite little voice in his head kill the zombies, you know which ones?

If it matters that the woman is a christian then why shouldn't it matter that Loughner was an atheist?

[laconicsax]

Because she was clearly motivated by Christian beliefs.

While she was probably insane and could have chosen to kill her son anyway, the simple facts are that the reasons given hinge on her beliefs.

While Loughner's motivation is unclear, his shooting rampage at a Democratic congresswoman's event is more likely to be a result of his very real extreme right-wing beliefs rather than a possible fear or dislike of Christians. Neither fear or dislike of Christians are known or supported by his being an atheist whereas his extreme right-wing ideology is known.

Try this analogy:

Person A worships Ares. Person A kills Person C and Person B kills Person D.

A says they did it because C worshiped Cronus and Ares commands that Cronus' followers be killed. B says they did it because D cheated them.

In this case, A's religious beliefs matter because they were a clear motivating factor. B's beliefs don't matter because their actions weren't motivated by religious beliefs. B may worship Ares, another god, or no god at all, but because they didn't base their actions on religious beliefs, it doesn't matter what god they worship.

[westerebus]

32. You usually don't kill people because you dislike them.

You kill people out of fear. Unless you are a deranged person. Unhinged from one's belief system. Incapable of determining your ethical boundaries. Unclear in you thought processes in the extreme. Confused at what is reality and what is not. Or you are psychopathic.

You nor I know what caused Loughner to do what he did. I suspect the voices in his head were as real to him as was the voice of god in the woman's head. Was it god that commanded Loughner to kill? Could have been. God's done it before. At least people have told us god has. I don't see how the denial of god would have helped Loughner any in this case. May be he was just a person who lost touch with reality and crossed into a world of his own.

A world were there was no god. God never existed. There was no logical reason for god to exist. There was no evidence of god. But, there was anger at those who insisted god did exist. That god was real. They could prove it because they had a book that said so, that there were millions of people who though so, that Church's and Temples and Mosques all proved there was a god(s). One true god, the others being false, depending on one's own beliefs. And they preached the word of their god. They imposed their moral code and called the Nation a god fearing Nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. The people of god were on his TV and in his school and they were everywhere. Preaching and praying and opinionating in the name of their god.

And Loughner was in fear.

They taunted him with their: god bless you, god loves you, it was god's will, and god will provide. Just pray. God hears you. God speaks to you. Just listen. And then he heard a soft low voice inside his head. Kill these people. Find those who would deceive you, those who don't answer your questions, those who don't see your truth. Kill them.

And he did.

In his world what matter was what he thought. What he feared. What his fear drove him to do.

I will take up your premise, he acted out of extreme right wing beliefs. Well, we have a problem. It's that god-religion thing the right wing is so attached to. Being a atheist, that won't hold up. We will put that aside for the moment.

Now, if he did murder those people because they were Democrats and Liberals then there is another problem. Most of the time people vote in opposition to opposing political platforms and their Representatives, they normally don't murder them.

Which, based on their religious teaching, it is wrong, it is a sin, a crime to murder. Not that that stops them, but its on the books. Not that civilization is all that civilized either.

[laconicsax]

33. I don't usually kill people at all.

Are you actually going to argue that because sane people don't kill for a given reason, no insane person would?

[westerebus]

36. The royal "you".

You're smart enough to know it was not directed personally. Glad you don't kill people though.

No. The idea is we do not know what the motive was in the Loughner shootings.

All we have are media reports.

What is important as far as I'm concerned is his lack of attachment to reality.

The woman who shot her son may competent under the law. Have to wait on the hearing.

Voices in the head? God? Not god? The devil made him/her do it?

A christian is more culpable but an atheist is not?

Is is all on the table os is it not?

[laconicsax]

43. Let me try this one last time.

You seem to be trying very hard to not understand, but maybe I just haven't explained it adequately.

Say someone plans and carries out a murder and after they're arrested they explain why. Do you think the reason(s) they give are important? I assume that you would answer yes, so I'll continue.

Now suppose that the reason(s) they give have to do with their religious beliefs (God wanted me to do it, the Bible said to do it, etc.). Should their stated reason(s) now be left out of consideration when discussing motive?

I say no.

It isn't a matter of a Christian being "more culpable" than an atheist for a crime, it's a matter of motivation. If it turns out that Loughner thought that people who believe in God should die, read a book or essay on atheism and concluded that murdering theists will make the world a better place, or shot up the Giffords rally because of beliefs stemming from his atheism, then his atheism is very well responsible for his actions.

If his atheism is responsible for his actions (as described above), that doesn't mean that anyone else's atheism or atheism in general are responsible.

In the case of the woman who killed her son at the shooting range, her stated reason was that she believed herself to be the Antichrist, wanted to ensure that her son would go to heaven, and feared that as he got older, the chances of him sinning (or her corrupting him) in a manner that would prevent him from going to heaven. Because of these beliefs, she says, she killed him. As a result, those beliefs are very relevant to the discussion of motive, but the fact that she held Christian beliefs doesn't mean that others with Christian beliefs are responsible for her actions or are likely to follow in her footsteps.

It also doesn't mean that Christianity as a religion is responsible. It does mean that one or more aspects of Christianity enabled her madness.

(Incidentally, I recall reading that Spanish conquistadors did something similar in South America--they'd convert someone to Christianity, then kill them before they had a chance to 'revert to their pagan ways' and preventing them from entering I don't know if that actually happened (much less remember where I read it), but if it did, it seems that the firing range murder isn't a new, radical application of those beliefs.)

The 9/11 hijackers did what they did largely because they believed that their act would make martyrs of them, thus ensuring their place in Heaven. That doesn't mean that all Muslims bear responsibility for 9/11 or suggest that most would likely follow in their footsteps. It just means that one or more aspects of Islam enabled their actions.

Remember, there are more ways to interpret religious texts then days in the year, and just because one (or more) people believe that the Bible/Qur'an/whatever tells them to do something nutty doesn't mean that all or most other adherents of the religion in question will agree.

[westerebus]

45. We are on the same page.

There are no exceptions in the broad context that individuals are responsible for their actions.

You contend it was the woman's religious beliefs that enabled her to kill her son. Were we part company is motivation. I see it as her distorting reality using a religious context to explain herself.

I'm more inclined to support the Conquistador's forced conversion of the Indians as being enabled by religion as you've stated. It's documented and historically supportable.

The same for the 9-11 example. I don't hold the many accountable for the actions of the few.

No one knows what in fact motivated Laughner. Dismissing his atheism does not answer the question.

Could he in his delusional world act out of fear based on feelings of persecution by christians?

I'm not trying not to get it. You have explained yourself well. I don't think I have as well.

When you read the supposition I made it is based on what atheists have said here on R/T. There is no god. God never existed.

It makes me angry when they say they will pray for me. etc etc They are in my face..

There is anger at religious people and by religious people here on R/T.

I don't expect them to go killing each other. A good verbal bashing but that's about it.

You and I have just had a conversation that was respectful and for me informative of your views.

That's not the case of the woman who murdered her son or Loughner.

[cleanhippie]

50. "I see it as her distorting reality using a religious context to explain herself." Really? You do?

I see it as her distorting reality using a religious context to explain herself.


If thats the case, is it also "distorting reality using a religious context to explain..." the benevolent actions of someone who gives away their fortune to charity "in the name of god", or someone who travels to a third world shithole to help other human beings "in the name of god."


Unless you are a total hypocrite, it is exactly distorting reality using a religious context to explain herself.

So, which is it?

[westerebus]

53. Mind your manners, please.

And I will mind mine. I will not call you names or assume something about, and if I have a question I will ask it. I'm not here to convert you. I don't have a religion to convert you to. Where we agree, I will support you. Where we disagree, I'll try to respect your view. I'd like to have a respectable conversation. We can agree to disagree. Your opinion and mine may may not be in agreement on everything. That doesn't give me license to accuse you or berate you if we disagree.

I wasn't making a comment about altruism.

I was discussing the influence of religion and murder in the context of delusional people.

If you look, I haven't commented in the your other OP.

You disagree with my premise, that she used religious context to explain her actions because she was delusional or that her religion made her delusional? Or do you disagree with something else?

I want to understand your objection before I can answer your question about murder and delusion. If that's what your objecting to? As you seem to think as posted below I'm an apologist for religion. Which is funny. At least I think it is.

I'm not a religious person. Having grown up inside of it, the Roman Church, if you're wondering, gives me some limited insight to how they operate. Having lived in the south for twenty years, I've seen the fundamentalists in the right wing do its thing too. Both have a lot to answer for. The RC has a long history of doing evil things in the name of god. So an apologist? I don't think I am.

To answer your question on altruism, if you heard god's voice inside your head, and you are sure it was god, I think you have a problem. Putting a check in the mail to the local food bank is not not same thing as shooting your son in the back of the head because god told you to.

If you care for the poor because you think it's the right thing to do, why would I care where you got the idea? If the poor are being cared for all the better. I don't care if its a government program, an NGO or the RC or the SBC.

Is caring for the poor a moral obligation? For those who profess to be christians, yes. Is it an ethical responsibility of a society to care for the poor? Again, yes.

Have I answered your question on altruism? And the distinction between the actions?

[cleanhippie]

54. Grow a thicker skin.

I did mot call you any names, I asked you a question.

You can blather on and on and try to run away from the facts if you want to, but you made a statement.

I asked you if that statement, as you stated it applied to this situation, also applied to other situations where the motivating factor was a religious belief.


They are either the same or they are not. You are either a hypocrite or you are not. Which is it?

[westerebus]

57. I answered your question.

I see a distinction between the two.

If you don't see the difference, there is nothing else I can say.

It's my opinion. We disagree.

[cleanhippie]

61. No, its not your opinion. You are being obtuse. Wilfully, it seems.

If person A does something "in the name of god" and then person B does something "in the name of god", then BOTH people were motivated by their religion. Understand that?


It matter not even a little just WHAT it was they did, good or bad, but what DOES matter is what MOTIVATED them to act the way they did.


Whether is was feeding the poor or killing a doctor, if they did it "in the name of god", their belief is what motivated them to act the way they did.


Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

[westerebus]

64. You asked my opinion, I gave you my opinion.

If the only determiner is an extremist religious belief, a factor that controls all things in a person's life, then you would be correct.

Thats' not what I see. I see a person who is possibly delusional. I would consider that a factor in her actions also.

Based on what I've read, I suspect the murder was premeditated. I don't have all the facts so I will wait an see.

If you kill a person in name of god that person doesn't get a pass based on their religious beliefs.

I think that's pretty simple.

Is writing a check to the local food bank on the same level as murdering a person based on religious beliefs?

My opinion is that they are different actions.

What motivates a person may not seem rational. Giving everything a person owns to charity as an example.

If it's yours why can't you do with it what you want?

Murdering someone is different.

Is this woman a religious fanatic? I don't know.

Do you?

[cleanhippie]

67. You are being obtuse.

You seem unable or unwilling to grasp the concept I am getting at. I do not know how to make it any clearer to you.

[cleanhippie]

49. Oh, it understands alright.

Every word is a virtual cut and paste from any apologetics website or a rehash of a Hovind/Ham spew-a-thon.


Whats disconcerting is that I am reading it here, a progressive website.

[darkstar3]

34. Wrong on so many levels right out of the gate.

There are a myriad of reasons that people kill, as criminal psychology will tell you if you study the field. Fear is only one of them. Sociopathy, rage, passion, jealousy, insanity (religiously induced or otherwise) and a whole bunch more reasons exist. Your post focuses entirely on your supposition of fear because it plays well into your narrative.

Loughner's atheism doesn't factor into this because his targets were clearly chosen for political reasons. If Loughner had been a Jew, a Muslim, or a Christian, it wouldn't matter either because there is absolutely no evidence that religious beliefs or lack thereof played a role here. There's also no evidence that fear played a role here. There is only evidence of mental incompetence, and the right-wing ideology of "hate the other." The other, in this case, was clearly "liberals", as he stated several times.

Loughner's case is in an entirely different ballpark from the woman who killed her son at the gun range.

[westerebus]

37. Murder is or is not murder?

Pick one.

[darkstar3]

38. Undivided middle. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

We're talking motivations, and these are worlds apart.

[westerebus]

39. That would be? You have no answer.

I expected better, that's disappointing.

[darkstar3]

41. I GAVE you my answer.

When you can do more to respond to #34 than simply repeat your faulty argument that murder is murder and that's all there is to it, I will read it and respond to it as needed.

[westerebus]

44. Hedging your bets?

[westerebus]

40. Up thread at 11.

You can't say that about murder.

What changed?

[darkstar3]

42. You can't, witness your actions.

You're trying to help religion disown murder. Nobody tries to help religion disown altruism. Hence my point is exemplified.

[westerebus]

46. Not in the least.

I place the blame on the murder. Being delusional doesn't exempt one from their crime.

Explaining that you murdered your son because god told you to is delusional.

See you on the morning. goodnight.

[cleanhippie]

51. "Explaining that you murdered your son because god told you to is delusional." Yes, and so is

Explaining that you helped the poor because god told you to is delusional.


If one is delusional, them both are.


Your choice, which is it.

[darkstar3]

52. "I place the blame on the murder"

That doesn't make sense. Murder has motivation, and motivation is important for many reasons both legal and social.

Not one person on this board has attempted to state that being delusional absolves one of a crime. The point you seem to be deliberately missing is that it is hypocritical to a fault to attempt to divorce religious motivation from murder but not from altruism.

[westerebus]

55. Who do you blame?

If a person is delusional and murders some one, you would hold that person accountable.

If that person claimed that god told them to murder, I would think you would still hold that person accountable.

Motivation is about the degree of the intent of a person who committed the crime.

The crime is the action that is judged.

If it was premeditated, which it looks like, calling in the god told me to defense is very suspect.

I'd have a real problem with that defense. I don't know the details. So I have to qualify my position.

Are people delusional? Yes some are.

Do delusional people commit crimes? Prisons are full of them.

Is there a degree between pre meditated murder and killing in self defense? Our laws say there is.

Is the a distinction between a good action and a bad action?

If a persons intent was to stop a bad action (killing in self defense) could they commit a crime while doing so? Yes.

Have people committed murder in the name of religion? Yes.

Do I see a difference between altruism and murder in the name of religion? Yes. I do.

[darkstar3]

56. Everything there is a dodge except for the final sentence, so I'll answer that.

Why?

Why do you see a difference between religious motivations to good actions and religious motivations to bad actions? Why do you, or anyone, get to say that religious motivations to bad actions are unimportant, while heaping praise on religious motivations to good actions?

You don't see any hypocrisy there?

[westerebus]

58. Have people committed murder in the name of religion? Yes.

I don't see that as an endorsement of or for religious belief.

I stated before that evil things have and are done by religion in the name of god.

If a person hears god talking to them inside their head and telling them to kill someone, I think that person is delusional.

Do you disagree with this?

[darkstar3]

60. Do you see the hypocrisy, yes or no?

[cleanhippie]

73. Its like talking to a brick wall. WTF?

Its text book cognitive dissonance.

Wow, just wow.

[cleanhippie]

48. Sanctimonious babble and arrogance to the extreme.

[cleanhippie]

47. You think his non-belief in a god was his motivating factor?

Really?

[westerebus]

59. Was it ?

What do you think?

[cleanhippie]

62. I asked YOU the question.

Afraid to answer?

[westerebus]

65. Not at all.

I think it could be possible.

I don't think mental illness excludes atheists.

Your turn.

[cleanhippie]

68. How can a lack of belief in a god be a motivating factor?

I don't think that's possible.

I don't think mental illness can be attributed to atheism, the lack of belief in a god. It would seem that you ARE saying it could be. Please elaborate.

Your turn.

[westerebus]

69. Please don't mis read me.

I did not attritibute mental illness to Atheism.

People can be mentally ill and be Athisets.

You don't think that's possibe? Why?

Your turn.

[cleanhippie]

71. Yes, thats exactly what you did. You DID attribute mental illness to atheism.

Your post...

The fellow who killed six people and wounded 12 others was deemed unfit to stand trial by reason of insanity.

Were there voices in that instance also?

In this case an atheist is responsible.

Do all atheist bear his guilt as well?




Those are YOUR exact words. Please explain how his lack of belief in a god has ANYTHING to do with the acts he committed or his mental illness.

No one has stated that an atheist cannot be mentally ill. No one.


YOU are the one that brought his lack of belief into the equation, so please explain how his lack of belief in a god has ANYTHING to do with the acts he committed or his mental illness.

[westerebus]

74. Did you miss the question mark?

Do all atheists bear his guilt as well?

That's a question not a declarative statement.

[cleanhippie]

76. Why would someone else who also lacks a belief in a god bear any guilt?

Fuck, dude, how obtuse can you possibly be?


HOW DOES A LACK OF BELIEF IN A GOD HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT?????????

[westerebus]

79. Sorry to take so long to get back to you.

Have you seen the new Pirates movie? Really good. Saw it in 3D. I should warn you there is a bit of cognitive dissonance in the plot. Having to do with a mermaid and a christian minister. Just in case such things might upset you.

I have to make this brief, too much to do today.

If you read through what I posted there is a question. Based on your question what's delusional? Were did the delusion come from?

Your position is based on the religious beliefs of a person. If I read you correctly.

That it doesn't matter if the action of a person is good or bad, what matters is their belief system.

If that was the only factor in a person life on which to judge their motivation, I'd agree with you. But, it's not in my opinion.

So we disagree on this point.

The question I have is about delusional people. And how do you judge their motivation(s)?

I think we could agree that delusional people can do very bad things.

My opinion is that they act out of fear when they do bad things.

After all, they are delusional.

Could Loughner have an irrational fear that he was being persecuted by christians?

I don't know. I think it could be a possibility. That's just my opinion.

I've said twice I have no intention of changing your mind, this will make it three times.

Don't get upset. It's just an opinion.

[darkstar3]

84. Complete mischaracterization of CH's point.

"That it doesn't matter if the action of a person is good or bad, what matters is their belief system."

That isn't remotely what anyone here has tried to say. What people here have been saying is that a person's motives are just as important as, and sometimes moreso than, their actions. The OP is about the hypocrisy of divorcing religious motives from only "bad" actions.

And BTW: "That just my opinion" or "I'm just sayin'" is a weaselly way of making broad-brush or wildly reaching statements without having to provide facts. Your "opinion" is noted...with contempt.

[westerebus]

94. Post 61 from CH.

" It matter not even a little just what it was they did.....both people were motivated by their religion. Understand that? "

Apology accepted.

[darkstar3]

96. Don't presume what isn't there, I offer no apology. Note the word "motivated."

Again you validate one of my points.

[westerebus]

98. Post 84 from darkstar3.

" What people here have been saying is that a person's _ motives_ are just as important as...their actions."

[darkstar3]

99. Did you have a point, or were you just looking to reinforce mine?

[Silent3]

87. No one is asking about which particular crimes are or are not delusional.

No one is asking about who is or is not guilty.

No one is trying to say all people with belief system X share guilt for the crimes of other believers in X.

There's a big difference between a person EXPLICITLY stating that their motivations were X and the fact that you can speculate in a vacuum whether or not someone's motivations were X.

Focus less on crimes, and more on charitable acts, because the key question is really about whether a charitable act can be delusional, and why the religious are more ready to disavow bad things done in the name of God than good things.

If someone says, "God told me to do X", do you need to know if X is a good thing or a bad thing before you evaluate how delusional that statement is, or should your judgement of delusionality be independent of your knowledge of X?

If you think you need to know what X is before you judged delusionality, why? Isn't the real issue whether or not people actually believe deities are issue them instructions?

Addressing anything else here without addressing the above first is evasion.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

97. Beautifully written

If someone doesn't understand your post, they're either not very bright or being deliberately obtuse.

[westerebus]

104. Post 51 from cleanhippie

"< Explaining you murdered your son...is delusional?> Yes, so is explaining that you helped the poor...is delusional."

"If one is delusional them both are."

Post:

28 westerebus: were there voices? reply laconisax

30 w: insanity If it matters? reply laconisax

36 w: voices? culpable? reply lconisax

37 w: murder or ? reply darkstar3

45 w: could he in his delusional world? reply cleanhippie

Silent3 " No one is asking about which particular crimes are or are not delusional. "

" Addressing anything else here without addressing the above first is evasion. "

[westerebus]

75. I'm going to the movies.

Sorry. I'll come back later this evening.

Thanks for spending your time on this.

I admire your passion in defense of your opinion.

I'm still not going to change your mind.

I don't intend to.

Have a good afternoon.

[frogmarch]

20. Abraham was ready to kill

his son Isaac because God told him to, according to the Bible. Many people believe this story is true. How can any of these same people consider anyone crazy for doing things, including committing murder, that they claim God told them to do?

[cleanhippie]

24. Exactly my point.

[cleanhippie]

25. Kick

[dimbear]

31. The difference is a lot smaller if you happen to be one of the heirs.

Then you slap grandma in a 'home' faster than lightning and have her declared addled for good measure.

[Deep13]

92. Less damage. nt

[Meshuga]

105. It depends a lot on what people mean by "God told them to"

If they literally hear God's voice telling them to do it, the difference is obviously the outcome with one outcome being bad and the other being good. But both cases indicate mental illness.

But if people give away to charity because "god told them to" in a sense of what they conceive of god then it just means that they use what they learn from their religion to do what is good. The same works for those who use their religion for malevolent ends.